BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) can characterize and diagnose pancreatic lesions as malignant, but cannot definitively rule out the presence of malignancy. Outcome data regarding the length of follow-up in patients with negative or nondiagnostic EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions are not well-established. OBJECTIVE: To determine the long-term outcome and provide follow-up guidance for patients with negative EUS-FNA diagnosis of suspected pancreatic lesions based on imaging predictors. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing EUS-FNA for suspected pancreatic lesions, but with negative or nondiagnostic FNA results was conducted at a tertiary care referral medical centre. Patient demographics, EUS imaging characteristics and follow-up data were examined. RESULTS: Seventeen of 55 patients (30.9%) with negative/nondiagnostic FNA were subsequently diagnosed with pancreatic malignancy. The risk of cancer was significantly higher for patients who had associated lymph nodes on EUS (P<0.001) and vascular involvement on EUS (P=0.001). The mean time to diagnosis in the group with falsenegative EUS-FNA diagnosis was 66 days. The true-negative EUSFNA patients were followed for a mean of 403 days after negative EUS-FNA results without the development of malignancy. CONCLUSION: For patients undergoing EUS-FNA for a suspected pancreatic lesion, a negative or nondiagnostic FNA does not provide conclusive evidence for the absence of cancer. Patients for whom vascular invasion and lymphadenopathy are detected on EUS are more likely to have a true malignant lesion and should be followed closely. When a patient has been monitored for six months or more with no cancer being diagnosed, there appears to be much less chance that a pancreatic malignancy is present.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) can characterize and diagnose pancreatic lesions as malignant, but cannot definitively rule out the presence of malignancy. Outcome data regarding the length of follow-up in patients with negative or nondiagnostic EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions are not well-established. OBJECTIVE: To determine the long-term outcome and provide follow-up guidance for patients with negative EUS-FNA diagnosis of suspected pancreatic lesions based on imaging predictors. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing EUS-FNA for suspected pancreatic lesions, but with negative or nondiagnostic FNA results was conducted at a tertiary care referral medical centre. Patient demographics, EUS imaging characteristics and follow-up data were examined. RESULTS: Seventeen of 55 patients (30.9%) with negative/nondiagnostic FNA were subsequently diagnosed with pancreatic malignancy. The risk of cancer was significantly higher for patients who had associated lymph nodes on EUS (P<0.001) and vascular involvement on EUS (P=0.001). The mean time to diagnosis in the group with falsenegative EUS-FNA diagnosis was 66 days. The true-negative EUSFNA patients were followed for a mean of 403 days after negative EUS-FNA results without the development of malignancy. CONCLUSION: For patients undergoing EUS-FNA for a suspected pancreatic lesion, a negative or nondiagnostic FNA does not provide conclusive evidence for the absence of cancer. Patients for whom vascular invasion and lymphadenopathy are detected on EUS are more likely to have a true malignant lesion and should be followed closely. When a patient has been monitored for six months or more with no cancer being diagnosed, there appears to be much less chance that a pancreatic malignancy is present.
Authors: T Rösch; H J Dittler; K Strobel; A Meining; V Schusdziarra; R Lorenz; H D Allescher; A M Kassem; P Gerhardt; J R Siewert; H Höfler; M Classen Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Ricardo H Bardales; Edward B Stelow; Shawn Mallery; Rebecca Lai; Michael W Stanley Journal: Diagn Cytopathol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 1.582
Authors: M Voss; P Hammel; G Molas; L Palazzo; A Dancour; D O'Toole; B Terris; C Degott; P Bernades; P Ruszniewski Journal: Gut Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: D B Williams; A V Sahai; L Aabakken; I D Penman; A van Velse; J Webb; M Wilson; B J Hoffman; R H Hawes Journal: Gut Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Chandrajit P Raut; Ana M Grau; Gregg A Staerkel; Madhukar Kaw; Eric P Tamm; Robert A Wolff; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Jeffrey E Lee; Peter W T Pisters; Douglas B Evans Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Darwin L Conwell; Gregory Zuccaro; Edward Purich; Seymour Fein; John J Vargo; John A Dumot; Frederick VanLente; Rocio Lopez; Patricia Trolli Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2007-03-27 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: Daniel F I Kurtycz; Andrew Field; Laura Tabatabai; Claire Michaels; Nancy Young; C Max Schmidt; James Farrell; Deepak Gopal; Diane Simeone; Nipun B Merchant; Martha Bishop Pitman Journal: Cytojournal Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Joo Kyung Park; Woo Hyun Paik; Byeong Jun Song; Ji Kon Ryu; Min A Kim; Jin Myung Park; Sang Hyub Lee; Yong-Tae Kim Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-03-11